Does Australia need an aircraft carrier?
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
i'm just wondering if the navy would even consider F-35Bs with their pilot shortage being as it is, adding as been said, 8-10 per ship, thats nearly 20 pilots, with trainers, replacements, rotation, it would be hard to make do along with the RAAF getting the F-35A, and the RAAF would most likely get first pick at any new pilots to fill their pool. Its not the interest or recruitment thats a problem, its finding the recruits who can make it from start to finish of training. Then we come back to a shortage of qualified people who can launch these aircraft of the deck.
There is also the problem of Aircraft taking up room that would be used for deployment, taking a full ship with aircraft that may not be used, along with the F-35B own supplies, would be taking room that could be of better benefit with more helos be they NH-90 or tiger, it would make a difference in deployment sense.
If the Navantia was already built, and ADF could review the use of STOVL aircraft in use by the Spanish, it may have had some weigh in on their decision, but it will not be commisioned until the expected start of construction on Nuship Canberra. by then, a change in design would mean cost blowout, and RAN would like to limit them as much as possible at the moment.
There is also the problem of Aircraft taking up room that would be used for deployment, taking a full ship with aircraft that may not be used, along with the F-35B own supplies, would be taking room that could be of better benefit with more helos be they NH-90 or tiger, it would make a difference in deployment sense.
If the Navantia was already built, and ADF could review the use of STOVL aircraft in use by the Spanish, it may have had some weigh in on their decision, but it will not be commisioned until the expected start of construction on Nuship Canberra. by then, a change in design would mean cost blowout, and RAN would like to limit them as much as possible at the moment.
Since the Army can never get enough sea lift, it seems a waste to use some of its valuable space for fighters. But as others have noted, its also nice to have several fighters onboard this ship if and when the deployment is beyond the range of land based fighters.
There are also those who wish to turn this commercially designed ship into a full fledged light carrier, without any army equipment onboard, loaded with 30 light fighters. Less than a tenth maybe, but not a third of my air combat force. I would prefer to have an aircraft carrier designed to military standards if I was going to place a third of my air force aboard.
There are also those who wish to turn this commercially designed ship into a full fledged light carrier, without any army equipment onboard, loaded with 30 light fighters. Less than a tenth maybe, but not a third of my air combat force. I would prefer to have an aircraft carrier designed to military standards if I was going to place a third of my air force aboard.
The Problem Australia would have with aircraft carriers is the cost, even a light carrier. 1/3 the size, 1/3 the price, and even that is to much. There would also be a problem of need, Aus. forces do not deploy as much or in as great numbers of the force as in the USA or UK. We generally deploy a contingent of elite highly trained "token" forces. The need for a protective carrier in operations is not a strategic need of the army or navy, and with Allied involvment in most deployments be they in Afghanistan or Iraq, we have carrier based protection. Most peacekeeping ops. have thus far had no air force to contend with and little use for strategic bombings.Sea Toby said:
I think this "commercially designed" & "military standards" issue needs some clarification.Sea Toby said:
"Commercially designed" means designed by a commercial organisation, as far as I'm concerned. Since few navies build their own ships in their own yards, this applies to almost all warships.
Standards are another matter. Warships can be (& traditionally have been) exempt from requirements to meet civilian standards, & have been built to navies own standards. This has meant that they've actually been slower to introduce some safety features than civilain shipping, although warship construction has traditionally included features not thought necessary in civilian ships, e.g. armour, & have had more damage control abilities, for obvious reasons.
The classification societies which regulate civilian standards have begun producing standards for warship construction. There have been teething troubles, but it seems to be coming together now. The US navy is iinvestigating the possibility of using them. Ships such as Albion are built to hybrid standards. Mistral has been built to a military standard developed by a civilian classification society. This is not the standard which would be applied to, e.g., a destroyer - but neither is it the standard which would be applied to a passenger ferry. The CVFs will be built to a classification society warship standard.
So you see, it isn't a straight military/civilian standards thing.
BTW, you might find these worth reading -
http://www.amsa.gov.au/Natship_2004/proceedings/JohnDikkenberg.pdf
http://www.rina.org.uk/rfiles/warship/Article0306.pdf
Last edited:
Actually if you look at the Spanish plans for this ship it is intended as a back up carrier. Secondly there will be two so only one need be configured for the air support role should we ever find ourselves in the situation that we need to deploy both these assets at once; and, finally every one seems to forget that the third 'amphibous support vessel' included under this project will be dedicated to that purpose only reeing up one LHD for other uses. God help us if we need all three vessel in the direct amphibious support role, we wouel run of of gear to land.Sea Toby said:
That would be an issue. Does anyone know what sort of availability the ADF has specified for the 2 LHDs? I know with the RN's CV(f) it is 80%, which would allow for both being operational together for much of the year.alexsa said:
Cootamundra
New Member
I'm seem to recall something along the lines of 80% but couldn't provide a link or anything like that to prove it. The Kanimbla and Manoora both seem to be in use quite a bit, I would imagine the new Amphibs would be used in a similar fashion.Whiskyjack said:
I have found a website with some pictures of the new Spanish LHD under construction:
http://www.freewebz.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/bpe.htm
The same website also has some pictures of the new Mistral LHD already built:
http://www.freewebz.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/mistral.htm
The Spanish ship is being built quickly, it has come a long way in a year. I also like the lines of the Spanish ship, but if Australia purchases the French ship, she will do the job.
http://www.freewebz.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/bpe.htm
The same website also has some pictures of the new Mistral LHD already built:
http://www.freewebz.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/mistral.htm
The Spanish ship is being built quickly, it has come a long way in a year. I also like the lines of the Spanish ship, but if Australia purchases the French ship, she will do the job.
Last edited:
Yeah, very sure... sadly. If were true, would signify that the construction is a lot more advanced of what is, but...
You can affirm that is the cavour, compares the photos of the same website of the cavour in construction, with those of the supposed BPE/SPS, especially the island, sky-jump and bow of the ship. Besides the bow of the design of the BPE/SPS is very different to that of the ship photographed. Moreover, the photos of the zone of the shipyard do not agree with the landscape of Navantia Fene and Navantia Ferrol, but with Ficantieri' s Riva-Trigoso.
Navantia Ferrol:
http://www.navantia.es/ficheros/1021647248734/Aerea_Ferrol_g.jpg
Navantia Fene:
http://www.galizacig.com/imxact/2005/07/navantia_fene04.jpg
http://galizacig.com/imxact/2006/01/navantia_fene05_590.jpg
I didn't blame you. The problem with that website and others with fakes or wrong pics is simple, at this moment we not have any pic of the BPE/SPS. Navantia has not autorized a single public photo of the BPE/SPS. The ceremony of keel laid was private and with minimal assistance, (a most inussual fact in Navantia) to avoid the presence of mass media and very unexpected, because it was thought to be delayed to pass the summer hollidays due to the labor protests of the workers of the civilian shipyards and the strike declared on the military shipyards of Ferrol & Fene in solidarity with them.
PS: Click to enlarge the pics at the website and you can see that they are different pics with BPE digital mockups instead the original photos of the BPEs page.
You can affirm that is the cavour, compares the photos of the same website of the cavour in construction, with those of the supposed BPE/SPS, especially the island, sky-jump and bow of the ship. Besides the bow of the design of the BPE/SPS is very different to that of the ship photographed. Moreover, the photos of the zone of the shipyard do not agree with the landscape of Navantia Fene and Navantia Ferrol, but with Ficantieri' s Riva-Trigoso.
Navantia Ferrol:
http://www.navantia.es/ficheros/1021647248734/Aerea_Ferrol_g.jpg
Navantia Fene:
http://www.galizacig.com/imxact/2005/07/navantia_fene04.jpg
http://galizacig.com/imxact/2006/01/navantia_fene05_590.jpg
I didn't blame you. The problem with that website and others with fakes or wrong pics is simple, at this moment we not have any pic of the BPE/SPS. Navantia has not autorized a single public photo of the BPE/SPS. The ceremony of keel laid was private and with minimal assistance, (a most inussual fact in Navantia) to avoid the presence of mass media and very unexpected, because it was thought to be delayed to pass the summer hollidays due to the labor protests of the workers of the civilian shipyards and the strike declared on the military shipyards of Ferrol & Fene in solidarity with them.
PS: Click to enlarge the pics at the website and you can see that they are different pics with BPE digital mockups instead the original photos of the BPEs page.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Can I ask a question for one of our Australian residents? What do Australians think about defence? Waste of money, spend more or no opinion?
I never actually realised Australia spend only 1.9% of GDP on defence. Though I don't suppose Howard would be courageous enough to boost that would he?
I never actually realised Australia spend only 1.9% of GDP on defence. Though I don't suppose Howard would be courageous enough to boost that would he?
I don't like to compare defence expenditures by a percent of GDP, as it often leads to misunderstandings. I prefer to compare defence expenditures by the modernisation of the defence forces equipment, i.e., their age, and by the training of their defence personnel.
Many nations with higher GDP defence expenditures don't have modern equipment, and other nations will have more personnel numbers but a lesser quality of training.
Defence excellence is what I prefer to compare. One must also keep in mind the growth of the economy, the unemployment rate, and the standard of living, much having to do with the quality of education.
Australia is not a superpower, but it is a regional power in its area. While New Zealand spends half as much as Australia, its forces are almost as modern, but far fewer in numbers. Both nations have excellent defence forces in my mind, although there is always room for improvement. And currently, both nations have a low unemployment rate, although it could be better.
The problems with both nations is being below strength in numbers. Its hard to recruit and hold personnel when the economy is going well.
The Howard government has increased defence spending considerably in Australia. On the other hand the Clark government in New Zealand hasn't increased defence spending per percentage of GDP.
Australians are well aware there are over 200 million Muslims living north of them. On the other hand New Zealand is well aware there are about 1 million or so Pacific islanders living to their north. That is a big difference!
I would say Australia is spending more on defence whereas many nations in Europe are still cutting defences, still cashing in a peace dividend.
Many nations with higher GDP defence expenditures don't have modern equipment, and other nations will have more personnel numbers but a lesser quality of training.
Defence excellence is what I prefer to compare. One must also keep in mind the growth of the economy, the unemployment rate, and the standard of living, much having to do with the quality of education.
Australia is not a superpower, but it is a regional power in its area. While New Zealand spends half as much as Australia, its forces are almost as modern, but far fewer in numbers. Both nations have excellent defence forces in my mind, although there is always room for improvement. And currently, both nations have a low unemployment rate, although it could be better.
The problems with both nations is being below strength in numbers. Its hard to recruit and hold personnel when the economy is going well.
The Howard government has increased defence spending considerably in Australia. On the other hand the Clark government in New Zealand hasn't increased defence spending per percentage of GDP.
Australians are well aware there are over 200 million Muslims living north of them. On the other hand New Zealand is well aware there are about 1 million or so Pacific islanders living to their north. That is a big difference!
I would say Australia is spending more on defence whereas many nations in Europe are still cutting defences, still cashing in a peace dividend.
Sea Toby, I don't want to be rude, but please, please stop calling the Mistral & the BPE/SPS LPDs. Under the USN classifications, they'd both be LHDs - or maybe BPE/SPS would be an LHA. Take a look at Albion, Rotterdam, or any US LPD, & check the specs, & you'll see the difference.Sea Toby said:
I did post an attempt to clarify the differences a while ago.
Yes, I stand corrected, and have corrected the post. Thanks, for some reason I keep typing P instead of H. I should proof read my posts better before posting.
After doing some research the Spanish LHD won't be launched until next year, and won't be in service until 2008. The Italian Cavour was launched recently.
I'm curious whether the Australian government has chosen its combat fire control sytem for the LHD yet? I doubt whether it would be Aegis. I suspect it will be similar to an improved Anzac class, but haven't a clue.
After doing some research the Spanish LHD won't be launched until next year, and won't be in service until 2008. The Italian Cavour was launched recently.
I'm curious whether the Australian government has chosen its combat fire control sytem for the LHD yet? I doubt whether it would be Aegis. I suspect it will be similar to an improved Anzac class, but haven't a clue.
Our Goverment has probaley spent more money in the past 5 years then in the last 25 on defence projects, equipment, and increasing troop numbers. Every year during the budget, defence comes out the biggest winner, on top of everything, and 2nd place goes to the intelligence community and federal protection agencies (ASIO,ASIS,DSD, AFP and customs). Howard has overseen major defence upgrades and purchases, ranging from the NH-90, armidale class patrol, wedgetails, Advanced combat upgrades for troops, bushmaster, javilins and the 4 new C-17s as well as Abrhams tanks. On top of this money has been allocated for the JSF,2 LHDs, ANZAC upgrades, new land vehicles-jeeps to replace land rovers, new trucks, and also more improvements in the supply chain which is of major importance at present.Musashi_kenshin said:
Our Army is already the best trained in the world, and now has the equipment to back it up, something for years it could never do. The navy is upgrading at a constant rate and is recieving new ships every few years, and the air force is being upgraded to allow it to fight in the next generation air warfare. The GDP might state otherwise, but when you look at the budget reports, defence is doing pretty well for itself, and next year will be the same. It may be only 1.9% but that money is well spent-exluding the seasprite
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given the arguments about whether embarked F-35B aircraft would detract from the available lift/transport of the two future Canberra LHD, does anyone know more about the proposed SeaLift capacity from Joint Project 2048? Depending on the proposed capability of the SeaLift, reductions in lift/transport capacity of a LHD might not mean much.
It seems logical to me that giving an upcoming vessel the flexibility to operate additional aircraft makes sense, as long as there isn't a great deal of negative impact on the vessel's ability to carry out it's primary design function. Giving the LHDs additional potential capabilites would expand the options available to the ADF. Are there any figures estimating the difference in construction and operating costs for a fixed-wing vs. non-fixed wing capable LHD in the primary amphibious transport mode?
It seems logical to me that giving an upcoming vessel the flexibility to operate additional aircraft makes sense, as long as there isn't a great deal of negative impact on the vessel's ability to carry out it's primary design function. Giving the LHDs additional potential capabilites would expand the options available to the ADF. Are there any figures estimating the difference in construction and operating costs for a fixed-wing vs. non-fixed wing capable LHD in the primary amphibious transport mode?
Yep as Gladius indicated this definately Cavour. Have a look at the page for cavour on the same web site.Sea Toby said:
http://www.freewebz.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/cavour.htm